Re: Why couldn't Calzaghe's peak have been around now :-(

Originally Posted by
ICB

Originally Posted by
erics44

Originally Posted by
ICB

Originally Posted by
BIG H

Originally Posted by
hitmanhatton

Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
calzaghe wouldnt have fought them if he was around now they are not in their 40's.
This !!
Coz Hopkins has been shite in his forties

Coming off convincing wins against Tarver and Winky, he loses to Calzaghe, then goes on to dominate undefeated Pavlik and even now is beating the likes of Pascal and lined up to fight Chad Dawson next.
Somebody who 'ducks' people, doesn't fight Lacy (when everybody thought he was the 2nd coming) or undefeated Mikhael Kesler.
I think B-Hop beat Joe Calzaghe but im not going to debate it again, also his win over Winky Wright wasn't convincing i had it a draw, plus remember Winky Wright was bloated at that weightclass aswell.
B-Hop is still a very good fighter in his 40's, but he lacks the stamina he once had and the aggression. If he had fought Joe Calzaghe when he destroyed Glen Johnson, i think he would of won even wider like 8-4.
I am at a loss to how anyone can think calazaghi lost to hopkins
i like the debates that boxing brings when fights go to descision even some less debateable descisions can be debated but that fight was so clear cut, i dont think there can be any question who won
Im at a loss how you thought Carl Froch beat Mikkel Kessler but thats just my opinion. I said i didn't want to debate it again, because its been debated to death trust me. I just liked B-Hop's cleaner punches.
i did think froch won that fight, i can understand a case for the other way but i thought froch won a close fight, even those that thought kessler won thought it was close and some rounds could be seen either way
i wont mention hopkins calazaghi gain then if you dont want to talk about it
Officially the only saddo who has had a girlfriend
Bookmarks